University of Wisconsin stands by 'Problem of Whiteness' course

[Bill the Cat]

That's what I'm not getting. I don't understand why robrecht is doubling down so hard on defending this crap.

It's SUPER progressive of him...

[Cow Poke]

It's SUPER progressive of him...

I'm thinking he's trying to earn his Woke Badge.

[Adrift]

That's what I'm not getting. I don't understand why robrecht is doubling down so hard on defending this crap.

I think robrecht is very intelligent, and highly educated, but he seems to play this game where he pretends not to get the obvious meaning of a thing, and then turns around and obfuscates his own position on a matter. I've run into the same issues with him in theological discussions, especially on his left-leaning views that hint at a sort of universalism. It's irritating, and makes discussion with him pretty unpleasant. I haven't decided yet if it's just a peculiar style of debate, or if his academic background has created a case where he's "thunk himself" stupid (in a manner of speaking. not that I think he's stupid, just that some of the things he says are total headscratchers).

[Cerebrum123]

I think robrecht is very intelligent, and highly educated, but he seems to play this game where he pretends not to get the obvious meaning of a thing, and then turns around and obfuscates his own position on a matter. I've run into the same issues with him in theological discussions, especially on his left-leaning views that hint at a sort of universalism. It's irritating, and makes discussion with him pretty unpleasant. I haven't decided yet if it's just a peculiar style of debate, or if his academic background has created a case where he's "thunk himself" stupid (in a manner of speaking. not that I think he's stupid, just that some of the things he says are total headscratchers).

When I pointed out basically the same thing he seemed to get pretty upset. He seems to be the only one who can't see that his own posts at minimum heavily imply universalism.

[Cow Poke]

I think robrecht is very intelligent, and highly educated, but he seems to play this game where he pretends not to get the obvious meaning of a thing, and then turns around and obfuscates his own position on a matter. I've run into the same issues with him in theological discussions, especially on his left-leaning views that hint at a sort of universalism. It's irritating, and makes discussion with him pretty unpleasant. I haven't decided yet if it's just a peculiar style of debate, or if his academic background has created a case where he's "thunk himself" stupid (in a manner of speaking. not that I think he's stupid, just that some of the things he says are total headscratchers).

Well, yeah, like when I took him at his word that he was sincerely interested in my input - and I responded in good faith, but it was just a drawn out game of "gotcha". That was really disappointing.

[robrecht]

That's what I'm not getting. I don't understand why robrecht is doubling down so hard on defending this crap.

I think I've probably defended at most a couple of things he's said or I've found in his source materials. As I've said from the beginning, I have no idea if he is a good professor or not. That determination should be made by his colleagues or other officials at the university. I do consider the subject matter of the course to be an extremely important discussion that needs to take place in our society. Whether or not his voice will be a valuable one in this discussion can better be judged by people who have actually engaged in the discussion with him or actually taken his course. Preferring not to judge a book by its cover, I looked at a couple of his articles and didn't bother to finish them--they seemed surprisingly mediocre, at best. I had to force myself to look at his source on the history of hip-hop, which I generally dislike, and there I was pleasantly surprised by the view expressed there on the need for black communities to take responsibility for better relationships with the local police.

[robrecht]

I didn't mean for you to take that personally.
It would have been more accurate for me to ask, "How is a class that identifies a particular race as the problem different than the Nazis who also identified a particular race as the problem?"

But Darth Executor directed it to me personally. I don't think this professor is Adolf Hitler or has plans on the systematic extermination of the white race.

[robrecht]

Well, yeah, like when I took him at his word that he was sincerely interested in my input - and I responded in good faith, but it was just a drawn out game of "gotcha". That was really disappointing.

I am still interested in your sincere input. I just misunderstood that you did or did not know anything more about the course than the brief course description.

[Cow Poke]

I am still interested in your sincere input. I just misunderstood that you did or did not know anything more about the course than the brief course description.

And you still don't know that. I had been researching the entire time, because it interested me. I think you are way too full of yourself to sincerely want a discussion. Good luck on earning your Woke Badge.

[element771]

College should be about preparing students to be better employees / citizens / people.... not just "stir the pot".

OK, I was looking for a point to jump in and I finally found one.

I don't necessary agree with this statement. "Stirring the pot" can be a very useful exercise because it forces students to think critically about their own positions. It also teaches them to listen to the other sides of arguments. This either allows them to defend their position more skillfully or it allows them to learn something and change their original position (if it is warranted).

That being said...it is harder to do this because students from the left and the right think that their opinions are sacred and shouldn't be challenged. They therefore are quick to give you bad reviews, complain to administration, etc. The term "indoctrination" gets thrown around a lot by some of the political pundits.

This is ridiculous...I have learned more about Christianity and philosophy in the past 5 years than I did my whole life as a regular church goer. Why? I was challenged by atheists on this website and at work. At first it lead me to doubt my faith but it also lead me to read and study. Now, my faith is pretty robust because I have read and digested all of the arguments for and against (that I could find). Would it have been better for me to stay in my echo chamber and remain ignorant of what I believed and why I believe it?

As far as the class...

I do have an issue with the title of the class. I don't think it serves any purpose besides creating controversy. The lively discussions / controversies should be a part of the class for reasons indicated above but such an antagonistic title is unwarranted.

As far as the content, I have less of a problem with that. I think that all humans should be taught how issues of racial identity, nationalism, etc affect others not apart of the majority of the population. We can then try to undo harmful practices for future generations.

[robrecht]

And you still don't know that. I had been researching the entire time, because it interested me. I think you are way too full of yourself to sincerely want a discussion. Good luck on earning your Woke Badge.

My views about race relations in the US are basically those of my father and not the result of any major change or transformation in my outlook. I haven't had a chance to complete your link about winning a Woke Badge, but I may not be that good of a candidate, given my dislike of hip-hop. I assume that's something we're all supposed to like in order to get this badge, right?

[Jaecp]

Woke is just slang for being socially aware. That you have awoken from your prior state of ignorance on how 'the other half lives.'

[Bill the Cat]

Woke is just slang for being socially aware. That you have awoken from your prior state of ignorance on how 'the other half lives.'

"Woke" means you have been properly SJW'd.

[Cow Poke]

OK, I was looking for a point to jump in and I finally found one.

I don't necessary agree with this statement. "Stirring the pot" can be a very useful exercise because it forces students to think critically about their own positions. It also teaches them to listen to the other sides of arguments. This either allows them to defend their position more skillfully or it allows them to learn something and change their original position (if it is warranted).

Here's the problem with that. Try to have a conversation with somebody who declares "Black Lives Matter". Try suggesting "all lives matter", or "so do Blue Lives", or..... I don't believe there's any desire to 'have a discussion' - I believe the intent is for you, dude*, to get woke.


*not you, element, but "dude" in general

[Adrift]

OK, I was looking for a point to jump in and I finally found one.

I don't necessary agree with this statement. "Stirring the pot" can be a very useful exercise because it forces students to think critically about their own positions. It also teaches them to listen to the other sides of arguments. This either allows them to defend their position more skillfully or it allows them to learn something and change their original position (if it is warranted).

That being said...it is harder to do this because students from the left and the right think that their opinions are sacred and shouldn't be challenged. They therefore are quick to give you bad reviews, complain to administration, etc. The term "indoctrination" gets thrown around a lot by some of the political pundits.

This is ridiculous...I have learned more about Christianity and philosophy in the past 5 years than I did my whole life as a regular church goer. Why? I was challenged by atheists on this website and at work. At first it lead me to doubt my faith but it also lead me to read and study. Now, my faith is pretty robust because I have read and digested all of the arguments for and against (that I could find). Would it have been better for me to stay in my echo chamber and remain ignorant of what I believed and why I believe it?

As far as the class...

I do have an issue with the title of the class. I don't think it serves any purpose besides creating controversy. The lively discussions / controversies should be a part of the class for reasons indicated above but such an antagonistic title is unwarranted.

As far as the content, I have less of a problem with that. I think that all humans should be taught how issues of racial identity, nationalism, etc affect others not apart of the majority of the population. We can then try to undo harmful practices for future generations.

You're absolutely right that college ought to be a place where students are challenged. Where students should sometimes be put in a place of discomfort to motivate them to think about a topic, and that will help them grow. I don't think anyone here seriously disagrees with that. That said, most colleges recognize a need for certain stated and unstated missions, values, and convictions which often include rules against curricula that explicitly or implicitly propagate hatred and intolerance for a particular ethnicity, religion, or sex. Universities and colleges, especially partially tax funded ones, should show little tolerance for administration that teaches/promotes things like holocaust denial, race-baiting, sexism, and the like, and there have been plenty of times when professors have been called out and fired for just these sorts of offenses (as pointed out even within this thread).

There's a line, of course, between curriculum that actually instructs/indoctrinates hatred and intolerance, and those that simply point out these things exist. There's a relatively clear distinction between teaching holocaust denial, and teaching that there are a small number of revisionist historians who accept holocaust denial. There should be a clear distinction between teaching about extremism within Islam, and teaching that all Muslims are, in fact, violent extremists. Normally the distinction between those who teach hate and intolerance, and those who teach about hate or intolerance should be easy to spot. It should be a matter of common sense, but more and more today in the extremely politically correct climate of most secular universities and colleges, that common sense distinction seems hard to place. Everyone is so afraid of stepping on the wrong toes, that they have a zero tolerance policy on issues that are non-issues (like the Nobel laureate who had to resign for his innocuous, and self-deprecating comments about girls in the laboratory that were interpreted as misogynistic). Furthermore, in what appears to be an overcorrection, there seems to have grown a sort of tyranny of the minority, where it's no longer enough to demonize the past wrongs committed by the majority in the West, but the actual majority themselves, even if they had no direct part in those wrongs (as seen in quite a bit of postmodern academic feminist and racial thought).

Many secular colleges and universities seem to be coming down on the wrong side of these issues, and that's sort of what the OP is pointing out (or at least, that's how I understand the OP).